Srinivas.B.S.S.T's Expert Profile

Queries Replied : 827

+ View Full Profile

What kinds of questions I can and can't answer?

My area of expertise

My experience in the area (years):

Organizations I belong to:

Publications or writing which has appeared :

Educational credentials:

Award & Honors:

tarun says : REGARDING ACCEPTENCE OF A PETITION IN CONSUMER FORUM
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE

srinivas says : can indemnity clause be excerised?
situation: Mr.A defaults repayment of housing loan taken for purchase of a site and construction. The nationalised bank calls for an auction in its premises and sells the site to Mr.X in the auction. Mr.X has paid full consideration for the site but the bank has not yet registered the site in the name of Mr.X even after 22 months from the date of auction. When Mr.X verified the property documents which were with the bank which the bank did not give before the auction the bank did not have all the documents required for registration of the property in his X name. so Mr. X insisted the bank to induct the indemnity clause into the certificate of sale and to provide all the necessary documents required for registration but the bank is just deny Mr.x that they cannot give any documents nor they will induct the indemnity clause. When Mr.X verified a copy of the sale deed of Mr.A which Mr.X received from the bank , Mr.X came to know that the bank officials have released the loan to Mr.A even for construction when there is no construction at all and they are fearing that if they induct any indemnity clause they may be in trouble for any future problems that may araise in the future. What measures can Mr.X take to get the site registered in his name? Several requests to various officials of the bank have failed to get any response from the bank.(at the regional levels & h.o.level)

Neeraj Chawla says : regarding false case
DEAR SIR,, THE UNDERSIGNED IS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.). MYSELF NEED TO ASK A QUERY REGARDING A FALSE CASE REGISTERED AGAINST ONE MR. NARESH DHALL WHO DARED TO BROUGHT CORRUPT OFFICIALS BOOKED WITH THE HELP OF C.B.I. AND HIMSELF GOT IMPLICATED IN A FALSE CASE REGISTERED BY THE LUDHIANA POLICE AT P.S. KOTWALI ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) OF THE SAME NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA. THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS:- IN F.I.R. NO. 81 REGISTERED AT P.S. KOTWALI, LUDHIANA DATED 03-10-2008 U/S 379,419,120B IPC ALLEGATIONS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) S. JASPAL SINGH 1. THAT ON RECEIPT OF REPORT OF SURVEY BY MITTAL SURVEYORS AS PER THEIR RECOMMENDATION THE DEPARTMENT PROMPTLY COMPLETED ALL FORMALITIES FOR TIMELY DISBURSEMENT OF CLAIM CHEQUE TO NARESH DHALL WHO WAS DULY INFORMED. THAT ON DATED 30-05-2007 COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH WAS PRESENT IN HIS ALONGWITH O.P. MALHOTRA DEPUTY MANAGER AND AROUND 4.15 P.M. THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL CAME ALONGWITH ONE GENTLEMAN AND NARESH DHALL INTRODUCED THE SAID GENTLEMAN AS SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH. MR. NARESH DHALL ASKED THE COMPLAINANT THAT THIS CLAIM FILE BE SHOWN TO CBI OFFICER FROM CBI AS HE HAS TO PERUSE THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH INVESTIGATION. THE COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH BELEIVING THE SAID GENTLEMAN TO BE THE SENIOR OFFICER OF THE CBI HANDED OVER THE CLAIM FILE DOCUMENTS AS TO ASSIST HIM FOR THR PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION. THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= AND LATER ON 6.6.2007 DULY SIGNED CONSENT LETTER OF MR. NARESH DHALL FROM THE CLAIM FILE AND TOLD THAT AS THE MATTER REGARDING THIS CLAIM IS UNDER INVERSTIGATION WITH CBI AS SUCH HE HAS TO DISCUSS WITH SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI UPON WHICH CBI OFFICER STARTED CONTACTING HIS SENIOR OFFICIAL ON TELEPHONE AND WHILE TALKING ON PHONE MOVED OUT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH CLAIM CHEQUE. NOTEDLY NARESH DHALL KEPT SITTING WITH COMPLAINANT IN THE OFFICE ITSELF AND TOLD JASPAL SINGH THAT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF CBI OFFICIALS HE CAN NOT COMPLY WITH ANY FORMALITY AND ASSURED THAT SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI SHALL BE BACK AS SOON AS HE GET NOD FROM HIS SENIOR OFFICIALS HE WILL SIGN THE RECEIPT. BUT AFTER HAVING WAITED FOR NEARLY 2 HOUR THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI DID NOT RETURN AND NARESH DHALL TOLD THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI AND HIS TEAM HAS COME FROM CHANDIGARH IN CONNECTION WITH ___________ OTHER RAIDS TO BE CONDUCTED IN LUDHIANA TODAY AND PROMISED TO COMPLETE AND SIGNED THE REST OF FORMALITIES NEXT DAY. 2. THE COMPLAINANT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT NARESH DHALL NEVER RETURNED AND IT WAS REVEALED LATER ON THAT NO OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH WAS DEPUTED BY CBI WITH NARESH DHALL TO SECURE THE DOCUMENTS AND INSPECT THE FILE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION. VERSION OF THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL: 1. IF ON 30-05-2007 ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL AND ONE OTHER PERSON (ONLY KNOWN TO HIM) WHO WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. NARESH DHALL AS CBI OFFICER AS THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= WHY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA DIDN’T INFORM THE POLICE AUTHORITIES AND PROCEED FOR THE STOP PAYMENT OF CHEQUE. ACTUALLY THE CHEQUE WAS IN FAVOUR OF M/S SHALLY COLLECTION WHOSE PROPRIETOR IS MR. NARESH DHALL ONLY & IT WAS A PAYEE’S A/C CHEQUE. THE COMPLAINANT MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA SIGNED THE SAME CHEQUE ONLY AT THE TIME WHILE HANDING OVER IT TO THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL WHO WAS THERE ONLY TO OBTAIN THE CHEQUE AFTER HE GOT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA TO RECIVE THE SAME CHEQUE. 2. IF AGAIN THE ACCUSED WITH THE SAME PERSON (ONLY KNOWN TO HIM) CAME ON 06-06-2007 TO THE SAME OFFICE AND AGAIN ASKED FOR THE CLAIM FILE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND TORN OFF THE CONSENT LETTER FROM THE CLAIM FILE AS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE COURT OF SHRI K.S. CHEEMA, CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, LUDHIANA IN THEIR REPLY IN A CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL WHY THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORITIES HANDED OVER THE FILE AGAIN TO THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL AND SAME PERSON (ONLY KNOWN TO HIM). 3. FIRST TIME ON 12-07-07 THEY HAVE ALLEGED IN THE COURT OF SHRI K.S. CHEEMA, CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, LUDHIANA IN THEIR REPLY TO THE NOTICE OF A CIVIL SUIT FILED BY MR. NARESH DHALL. 4. EVEN AFTER THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THEM IN THE COURT THEY NEVER REPORTED THE MATTER TO THE POLICE. 5. APPROXIMATELY AFTER 4 MONTHS THE COMPLAINANT FIRST TIME REPORTED THE MATTER TO THE POLICE ON 20-09-2007. 6. ACTUALLY DURING THE PERIOD OF THE COMPLAINT ON WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS REPORTED TO THE POLICE AND THE F.I.R. WAS REGISTERED THERE WAS EVIDENCE PENDING IN THE COURT OF CBI AT PATIALA IN THE CORRUPTION CASE IN WHICH THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL IS THE COMPLAINANT F.I.R. ATTACHED. 7. THE MATTER WAS REPORTED TO THE POLICE ON 20-09-2007 AND THE F.I.R. WAS REGISTERED ON 03-10-2008. IT TOOK APPRXIMATELY MORE THAN ONE YEAR TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER. ACTUALLY THEY WERE WAITING FOR THE FAVOUR IN THE EVIDENCE TO BE MADE BY THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL IN THE COURT OF CBI. AND WHEN THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL TOLD THE TRUE FACTS IN THE COURT OF CBI THEY LOOSE THE PATIENCE AND MANAGED TO GET A FALSE REGISTERED AGAINST THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL WHO IS THE COMPLAINANT IN THE CASE OF CORRUPTION REGISTERED AGAINST THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GAJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA. 8. THE CONCERNED DIVISIONAL MANAGER WHO COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL IS IN ACTIVE CONNIVANCE AND HAND IN GLOVES WITH THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WERE CAUGHT RED HANDED WHILE TAKING BRIBE BY THE CBI OFFICIALS ON THE COMPLAINT OF MR. NARESH DHALL. 9. MOREOVER THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL GAVE HIS STATEMENTS AND CROSS EXAMINATION IN THE C.B.I. COURT, PATIALA IN WHICH THE ACCUSED IS THE COMPLAINANT ON 26-03-2008 & 13-05-2008 RESPECTIVELY. 10. CHALLAN TO COURT BY CBI AUTHORITIES ON DATED 28-06-2007 IN WHICH THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL IS THE COMPLAINANT IS ALSO PRIOR TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE LUDHIANA POLICE BY THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S (OFFICIATING) DIVISIONAL MANAGER S. JASPAL SINGH. NOW THE MAIN POINT IS THAT THE I.O.s ONE A.S.I. AND ONE S.P. WHO INVESTIGATED THE MATTER BY IGNORING ALL THE TRUE FACTS REGISTER A FALSE CASE AGAINST ONE MR. NARESH DHALL CAN BE BOOKED UNDER LAW OR NOT. THE ACCUSED MADE HIS STATEMENTS BEFORE BOTH THE I.O.s AND ALSO FAXED THE SAME TO THE S.P AT HIS OFFICE FAX NO. OF WHICH FAX REPORT IS O.K. INSPITE OF ALL THE TRUE FACTS THE I.O.s MANAGED TO FALSELY IMPLICATE MR. NARESH DHALL. BY WHICH THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE GOES WRONG THAT ONE WHO COMES FORWARD AGAINST THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS CAN BE FALSELY IMPLICATED. TELL THE REMEDY SO TO CONVEY THE PEOPLE A RIGHT MESSAGE. KINDLY DO RESOLVE THE QUERY AT YOUR EARLIEST AND OBLIGE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC AT LARGE. THANKS, NEERAJ CHAWLA NATIONAL PRESIDENT, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.) CELL # 94171-94171

Sunil Dhiwa says : divorce paper
Dear Srinivas can u help me for the same documents

Rakesh Boini says : Nazul Land
hi thes is Rakesh.. I would like to Know some Details about Nazul land and when it is started... will u people please give me some details about thes...

Click here to see all answered queries

Comment Please

Other LCI Experts

Rajendra K Goyal
Queries Replied : 53581

Raj Kumar Makkad
Queries Replied : 44370

Devajyoti Barman
Queries Replied : 34799